get_cluster_network_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool shows (network type, cluster networks, service networks, machine networks), which implies a read-only operation and outlines the output scope. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, side effects, or return format beyond the listed fields. For a 'get' tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and resource, the second lists the output contents. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool, the description is largely adequate but has a significant gap: the meaning of the 'cluster' parameter is not explained. Since the parameter is optional and the tool is cluster-wide, this ambiguity could mislead an agent. The output schema exists (though not shown) and the description lists key fields, so overall completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter 'cluster' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description never mentions the parameter, leaving its purpose entirely ambiguous. An agent cannot know whether 'cluster' refers to a cluster name, a selector, or something else. With no compensation in the description, the agent is left guessing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('cluster-wide Network configuration from config.openshift.io/v1 networks/cluster'). It also enumerates the exact fields shown (network type, cluster networks, service networks, machine networks). This distinguishes it from any sibling tool; no other tool targets network configuration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage ('Get the cluster-wide Network configuration') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear enough for an agent to infer that this tool is for network configuration, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate for related queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.